Glass Ceiling Research Paper

Glass Ceilings: Another Favour from the Society to Men

Alyssia worked hard and made many sacrifices to achieve her dream of being a police officer. However, even after years on the job, and despite having received many commendations, she still felt that she had to work twice as hard as her male colleagues to demonstrate that she deserved to be there. As a woman, Alyssia struggled to overcome the stigma of gender preferences. Over and over again, she had to prove herself worthy for the promotions she desired. After a certain level, she realized she was not making any progress while her male colleagues who started with her were appointed to authoritative and higher chaired positions.

It’s not just Alyssia, but many women in the workplace are experiencing what is called as a ‘glass ceiling.’

History and Definition:

A glass ceiling is the term used to describe barriers that prevent women and minorities from advancing beyond a certain level of hierarchy at workplace (Wikipedia). Gender and race are not a fair or accurate measure of a person’s capabilities or their potential, but yet they continue to be a part of the world’s system for career promotions. The glass ceiling inequality does not only take place at higher levels of an organization,

but also manifests itself at lower organizational levels in a manner which is akin to a “sticky floor” (Smith 152).
The concept of the glass ceiling was originally introduced outside of print media at the National Press Club in July 1979. This was at a Conference of the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press led by Katherine Lawrence of Hewlett-Packard. This was part of an ongoing discussion of a clash between written policies of promotion versus action opportunities for women at HP. The term was coined by Lawrence and HP manager Maryanne Schreiber (Wikipedia). The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission defines the glass ceiling as "the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements." David Cotter and colleagues defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. A glass ceiling inequality represents:
a. "A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee."
b. "A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome."
c. "A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels."
d. "A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career. (“Glass Ceiling- Definition”)
Critics:
Affirmative action, which is the policy of favouring members of a disadvantaged group who currently suffer or historically have suffered from discrimination within a culture, has been designed to combat problems like the glass ceilings. The term affirmative action was first used by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. When it comes to employment and women, affirmative action precisely means outreach efforts and recruitment programs to include talented women in the database when hiring decisions were made. In fact, a government study showed that women made greater gains in employment after the government passed the affirmative action law (“Affirmative Action”). Affirmative action has played a vital role to help women and minorities to claim their rightful place in the society, and open up opportunities which were not available before.
Clinging to affirmative action, the critics of the glass ceiling also accuse radical feminist organizations for blatantly destroying the lives and careers of many innocent men and boys. According to the censors, feminists implicate the illusion of a glass ceiling and take away opportunities from deserving male candidates. They also think that men are put at a disadvantage economically, while women are given—through biased policies—unfair advantages and foundations to excel and climb higher on the career ladder. Furthermore, the faultfinders go on to say that women do not want to take up senior level positions, as they demand more effort, dedication and time. They back up their statement by further adding that women choose family and household over work and career, and they have no intent to climb up the ladder.
Advocates:
Countering the points made by critics, the defenders argue that regardless of the fact that action is taken 95 to 97% of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are male. Also, even though women are over half the adult population, and nearly half the workforce, they remain disproportionately clustered in traditionally female jobs with lower pay and fewer benefits. According to an article titled ‘Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women’, “One in four employed women worked in an administrative support or clerical job, and 78.7% of administrative workers in all industries are women.” Likewise, “women are only 10.6% of all engineers, 3.1% of airplane pilots and navigators, less than 2% of carpenters and auto mechanics, 15.7% of architects, and about one quarter of doctors and lawyers (“Affirmative Action”)”.
Additionally, an earnings gap exists between women and men across a wide spectrum of occupations. Women approximately make about 73 cents to each dollar earned by men. This grabbed limelight everywhere when Texaco, an oil industry company, publicly agreed that the company was consistently paying women in professional and executive positions less than their male counterparts, and agreed to bury the disturbing findings by giving approximately 180 or more of its female employees more than $3 million back in back wages and payment adjustments (Affirmative Action). Turns out, it is not only Texaco; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against 10 oil companies operating in 12 states associated with the umbrella True Oil LLC for paying female accounting clerks less than men for essentially the same work (EEOC).
As far as it comes to intentions, women are just as ambitious as men. Women want to succeed in the workplace just as much as men do. In a survey conducted by PriceWater House Coopers, it was found out that women and men have equal desires to have the CEO job, and that women who have children desire the higher levels of corporate ladders just as much as women who do not have children (“Women and Men in US Corporate Leadership”). In fact, due to gender prejudice, and the fact that women are always expected to be less like themselves and more like men, in most organizations ambitious women have to maintain a façade, and develop a style with which male colleagues are comfortable with and can see them in managerial light.
As if compromising who they are to mould into the workplace was not enough for women, advanced research has given birth to one more biased path for men to reach the apex: glass escalators. The glass escalator refers to how men in female-dominated careers, often rise higher and faster than women in male-dominated fields. The perception that men are not really suited to do the work women do, is the fuel to the car named ‘glass escalator.’ Christine Williams’ in-depth interviews with seventy-sex men and twenty-three women in female-oriented professions yielded the conclusion that “men were favoured in the hiring process and encouraged to pursue the most masculine jobs in female- dominated professions—jobs that offered higher pay and more authority” (Williams 258). Williams’ study just goes on to strengthen the bias and favour shown to a specific gender in the society, which spawns the question: do all men ride the glass escalator?
Racialization of the Glass Escalator:
Research shows that it is not only women who are bearing the brunt of sexist predispositions favouring white men, but also some men—men of colour—who share the burden of losing a never-ending war to white men.

Drawing on Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s seminal work ‘Men and Women of the Corporation,’ Christine Williams argues that male tokens working in female-dominated jobs do not experience the same kind of discrimination women face when they are tokens working in male-dominated jobs. Williams’ study, which was based on seventeen “semistructured” interviews of black male nurses, concluded that unlike white men, black men do not get to ride the glass escalator to better paying jobs and higher pay in feminine professions (Williams

266).
The racialization does not end here for black men. For black male nurses, gendered racist images may have specific consequences for their relationships with female colleagues, who view black male nurses through the lenses of controlling images and gendered racist stereotypes that emphasize the danger they apparently pose to women.
If white women and men of colour each have one strike against them, women of colour on the other hand, are women and are people of colour. Women of colour have been known to do even worse than white women, on the pay scale index. They are undermined, thought of as less intelligent, and are looked down upon at the workplace. Glass escalators are racialized and gendered in such a way that white men are more likely than minorities—women, and/or people of colour—to benefit from working in female-dominated jobs.
Conclusion:
Adia Wingfield’s semi-structured interviews with 17 black male nurses and sheds new light on racial tensions and inequality in America. Some of the roadblocks affecting black male nurses are put into stark relief in the interview data she presents. According to Wingfield’s research
1. Black men were not welcomed by women, they were isolated and treated like they were not wanted.
2. Black men experienced a great deal of difficulty getting promoted.
3. While white men were mistaken for doctors, black men were mistaken for janitors regardless of how they presented themselves.
A situation involving black male nurse, and a white female patient, precisely shows this effect in better light. A black nurse once went into check on a newly admitted patient. As he entered the room, to check if her vitals were stable, the patient asked him who he was. He told her that he was a nurse, and yet the patient would not let him touch her, because she consistently kept on repeating that he was from housekeeping, and not a nurse, as he was black (Wingfield 12). While another patient said, “Well, can you send the nurse in?” after one of the black male nurses gave him medicines (Wingfield 18).Research like Wingfield’s is important because it shows us that inequalities are institutionalized.
Women are often disadvantaged because of their gender, but we find that men of certain races are also disadvantaged. This intersection of gender and race, which is intersectionality, forms a barrier that prevents fair treatment of many members of society which brings us back to the same statement, time and again: Gender and race are not a fair or accurate measure of a person’s capabilities or their potential, but yet they continue to be a part of the world’s system for career promotions. First, Alyssia and her constant struggle to prove she was worthy of her positions, now the black male nurses and their fight to make people believe in their work skills, and the infinite number of other stories which never got a voice: How many dents in our life do we owe white men, before we actually start voicing our pain? How many favours, before we are all out?